The following program is recorded content created by The Truth Network. It's Matt Slick Live! Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at karm.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick Live for answers. Taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey everybody, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick, and you're listening to Matt Slick Live. Hey, if you want to give me a call. All you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. And if you want, you can email me as well. That's easy to do. Just put an email in to info at carm.org, info at C-A-R-M dot O-R-G. And put in a subject line, radio comment, radio question, something like that. We can get to you. All right, all right, all right. And let's see, I've been studying a lot today about atonement. So anyway, we can. We can get to that after we get some callers and things like that. So anyway, if you want to give me a call, like I said, 877-207-2276. All right, why don't we just jump on the line here and get to Michael from Texas. Michael, welcome. You are on the air. Hello. Hello. Nice to meet you. I think I've met you a long time ago. OK. You're friends with my father-in-law, Bill McKeever. Bill's your father-in-law? Yeah, I'm married to Kendra. Oh, OK. Well, Kendra's nice. I like Kendra. She's great. Bill, I don't know. Bill's OK, though. You know how it is. He's all right. Kendra's nice. Yes, that's true. Well, good. Where are you calling from? Texas, huh? Well, how about that? Yes, sir. We're out in Lockhart, barbecue capital. Well, good. So I've been wrestling with some interesting doctrinal things, particularly related to time, which I just heard you talking about a couple days ago. But the thought process that I had resulted in asking the question, is time the measure of before and after, or is it the actual existence of before and after? Wow. Okay, so no one really knows. So in other words, we could ask questions like, when did God start time? Well, let's define time first. We have to define it first, okay? So this is one of the problems that people have had regarding the very notion of what time is. And so is if we were to say and defining it's a little bit difficult if we're to define time as a measurement of sequences of events and we measure it and it could be arbitrary one second or one minute you know we have those well if we define time as a as a the reality of a sequence of events then all we're saying is that time is an abstraction that doesn't have any ontos in itself. Ontos means the nature and essence of something, like the nature and essence of a bowling ball has bowling ball-ness and certain properties that relate to it. And we can measure the properties, but can you measure time as a property? And this is the question that physicists, astrophysicists are working on, and even philosophers. So how do we define time? If we were to say it's a sequence of events, which is very, very loose, if that's the case, then does time apply to God? And if so, in what way? And so this becomes a very difficult question. So I'm just saying that we have all this. So I'll tell you where I'm coming from. is at least what I've concluded so far is that Genesis 1 tells us in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. There's a beginning point there. You have the first day. So I believe that's the creation of time. And I believe that the creation of time is the creation of creation itself. And I believe that the Bible says that before creation itself, God took actions. So where I have arrived is that God, the great I Am, is the definition of the present. He is not creating the present and then entering and exiting the present. He is simply the I Am, and he brought us through creation, which would be like strapping on a giant wristwatch. He created the heavens and the earth and then he had the first day and then everything else came into existence with him and therefore he is not outside of that sequence of moments because he defines the sequence of moments. Does that make sense? Yes, kind of. So part of the issue here is definition of terms. And when you have definitions of terms, then you can define them in more detail, and then you can relate them logically. So now let's talk about this definition of time. All right. So some say it's a sequence of events that can be measured. That seems to be a pretty common idea of what time is. And I have a wristwatch on, and I can measure it in seconds. All right. So now here's a question. Does God have a sequence of events natural to his essence? That's a question. Because before the creation of the universe, the physical aspect of time, as some say, is the fourth dimension. There's A-theory, B-theory, is time all extant, or is it we passing through it, or is it sequential? You know, various things. There's measurements issues, there's block theories, there's all kinds of stuff. So anyway, If God is a Trinitarian being, which he is, and there's interaction and communion within the Trinity, then if we say that there's an interaction, we would assume such an interaction would require a sequence of events. If that's the case, then time is part and parcel to the nature of God. You see? If we look at it that way, time is not something that is invented. It's part of God's nature. If we were to say that time is a sequence of events, because then God has a sequence of events, but then can we say that? Because on the other hand, God knows all things eternally. So if he knows all things eternally, can he contemplate? Because to contemplate means to think of what you already know and then draw conclusions. A conclusion is an event after a contemplation that would necessitate time. in this sense of measurement, or sequence of events. But since God knows all things eternally, can he contemplate? It wouldn't seem that he could. How then is he active? Well, he's active in the inter-trinitarian communion. So the inter-trinitarian communion fellowship requires, it would seem to logically require, a sequence of events where there's an exchange of love and I get into the father and son relationship is mediated through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit and the Father is mediated through the Son. The Son and the Holy Spirit are mediated by the Father. where the issue and act of mediation within the Trinity necessitates a sequence of events. And it would seem as though time then would be a necessary property of God's nature. And that time has then been extended into the physical world as it reflects the character of God when he created the world. And so time is simply reflection like logic, like truth values, and ideas and categories are reflective of God's essence and nature. you see how this is this is complicated to see what i'm saying it it does but uh... so and i would i would say that was created and it's going to go away uh... in the sense of we're gonna this haven't been to the heaven and earth is gonna be removed and they're gonna be new haven't been birthed which is a new major that doesn't mean that time's gonna stop progressing through moments Or when God stops time for a day. You're contradicting yourself. If time's going to go away, and it doesn't mean that time is not moments, that it is moments, then you can't have time go away with also being moments. So what I'm arguing is that time, the existence of time, is the existence of a measure. I'm arguing that the present and the past and the future existed as a stream before time existed. And it will exist after this time stops and when the next time starts. And then when God stops time over the, you know, during a battle, you know, it it's not the stop of succession of moments, but it is the stop of the sun in the sky. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Now you're you are messing up what on what time definition is and you're equivocating. So what I recommend to people discuss this kind of issue is that they have to define their terms very precisely. They have to understand the definition that they're using, and then they have to apply that definition. Now look, look at this. Jesus, on the earth, was subject to time. He had to sleep, wake, walk, next day, fulfill prophecies, took time. Would you agree? Uh-huh. And Jesus is still a man, right? Mm-hmm. Yep. Therefore, it would seem certainly logical to say Jesus is still subject or involved with or interacting in a time fashion. And since he's going to forever be in that form, it can never be that time ceases. OK, so I'm not I'm not when I say time ceases, I'm saying that the major ceases. I'm not saying that this event ever stops. you can't have that either because god's mind measures all things he knows all possibilities as well actualities was called and i don't think you're understanding my my premise here so do you think you're understanding your premise i'm sorry but i don't think you are as if you say measurement yet understand that god is ubiquitous he's everywhere he measures things he knows distances i was i'm not nations so then they're going to let me know that they're going to hold on a little only one of the president No, no, no, hold on. There can be no instance where no measurement occurs then. Any place, any time, in any situation. Okay? Because God's measuring it. All right? Okay? This is a logic issue. Okay? Keep going. Keep going. Okay. So, basically, this all started from pondering in my reading the concept of what's the purpose of creation and all existence is to know God and to have a relationship with him. No, that's not it. Nope. Isaiah 43 verse 7, we're created for God's glory. And inside of that purpose that God has for us, we obtain fellowship through the redemptive work of Christ. We're created for his glory, Isaiah 43, 7, specifically is what that says. OK? OK. So we are created for his glory. Are we supposed to have a relationship with God? Yes or not? Yes, we are. And is that relationship one-sided, where he doesn't experience anything? No, he experiences. It's called the immutability of God, impassibility of God, that he does experience things with us. And he does. We interact with him. But we're created for his glory. But in that, we have that fellowship and intimacy with him. That's 2 Corinthians 13, 14. We have that, too. Gotcha. So, um, anyway, so that's, that's what started down this path. And I started asking the questions, where, where do we get this concept that God is in the future or outside of time? And it's a, it's a logical argument coming from God created time. So he has to be outside of time. So ultimately it comes from Greek philosophy is where that idea comes from. No, no, it doesn't. No, it doesn't just come just thinking. Um, and so, uh, when did people say God's outside of time? I said, what does it mean to be outside of time? And no one knows because we can only relate to being in time, whatever that is, by our experience and our knowledge. But we can't say what God's relationship to time is. We can't say he's outside of time because we can't define what outside of time is. So people say this. They don't know what they're saying because they haven't thought it through. I used to say this until I thought about it one day. Wait a minute, what does that mean? And so I stopped saying that. I just say he relates to time differently than we do. But I believe that time is part of God's nature because of the necessity of fellowship in an inter-Trinitarian communion, which requires an interaction, which by definition is a sequence of events. I think we're kind of saying the same thing, but different words. Kind of. But hold on, we've got a break, okay, Michael? Hold on, buddy. We've got a break. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned if you want. This is interesting stuff. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Michael real fast before we get to the callers. All right, Michael, let's give it another couple, three minutes, and then we'll go to the callers. All right. Cool. So yeah, so I think we're kind of saying the same thing a little bit, because you're basically saying that God existed in a logical sequence of moments before creation? No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying that it appears to be that within the Trinity there has to be a communion. Well, there is one, and that implies an interaction, which implies sequence, which implies time, which then would suggest that time is a property of God's nature. If we define it that way. I think you're making it more complicated than I am. But that's okay. No, I think like this because I've been doing this for so long, 45 years, that I've learned that you have to define your times, your words very specifically, your concepts. Because how you use them then is important after you define them well. And if we're going to use it, God is a standard of what time is. Like, what is truth? Truth is that which corresponds to the mind of God. What is goodness? Goodness is what corresponds to the character of God. So we have to know what time is. Time, is it created by God, or is it related to God's nature? That's the question we're getting to. Sure. So the main reason for asking that question is to address the conclusion that is made, that is, if God created time, he must be outside of it. But that doesn't make any sense because we don't know what outside of time means. And we don't know if it's created time is right is. I agree that that doesn't make sense. I'm just saying that that is the argument, not the one I'm making, but the one that is made by men. It's not a good argument because you have premise one. God created time. Well, then the implication is he was existing without reference to time beforehand. That doesn't seem to make any sense. And premise two, he's outside of time, doesn't seem to make sense either, because we don't know what that means, so we can't define it to say that God's related to it. I've gone through this a lot. I talk with atheists a lot. We go through these things. I've gone through this conversation hundreds of times, OK? So where I'm going with this, I'll give you a brief direction. I can point you to a website, but I don't want to plug myself. Unless you don't mind. But basically, where I'm going with it has to do with God's ongoing sovereignty, and the fact that God is sovereign today, and He was sovereign yesterday, and He was sovereign when the Bible was happening. Christ was given all authority when He ascended, and He will give back that authority at the end of the 1,000 year reign of Christ. If there's a 1,000 year reign of Christ. Sure, and we don't need to argue about that one way or another, but the point is that God clearly acts in such a way where he's interacting and choosing things as far as what I read throughout Scripture. Yes, because it's an anthropomorphic thing. So I've had these kinds of discussions, I can't even tell you how many hundreds of times over the years, and I'm not saying I get all the answers, but I'm quite familiar with these things and the rabbit trails to go down them. But I can tell you this. I've said this several times. I'm going to say it again. Always define your terms very specifically and relate the term to different situations. And then try and find problems with your terms before you begin to apply the term in premises and in conclusions. critical. And the only reason I know this is because I've been doing this for 45 years, 45 years. Okay. And so, uh, I'm just telling you, that's what you gotta do. Otherwise you stub your toe. Okay. You do. All right, man. All right. Well, uh, if, if you have a minute, go, uh, go look at the rest of the argument, I guess. Uh, just that, uh, ongoing sovereignty.org and see what you think. You can email me, you know, info at karm.org. And if you're ever in, you know, seeing Bill again, let me know. I'll go, you know, I'm thinking about going down there anyway to see him. I haven't seen him for a while since November, but he's out here quite a bit too. Yeah. Yeah. He's still here. That's right. He is. That's right. I've known him for, I don't know how many years, decades, like 35 years. I've known him too. All right, man. We got callers waiting. All right. All right, Michael. Okay, God bless. Bye. All right. Good. Now let's get to next longest is Cole from Georgia, then Steve from Utah. Let's get to Cole from Georgia. Cole, welcome. You're on the air. Mr. Matt Slick, welcome. Thank you. Welcome, man. So what do you got, buddy? I got a Doodle Army 1426. If you can read that for me. Okay, Deuteronomy 14 26 Yes, sir. Okay. Come on get in there. Come on. There you go, which says You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires for oxen sheep wine strong drink Whatever your heart desires and there you shall eat in the presence of your Lord your God rejoice and you in your household Okay Okay. Now what stands out for you? Uh, what stands out for you right there? Um, I'm confused on, it says wine. And then he also says strong drink. I'm confused. He's actually okay. He's okay for him to drink this strong drink. I thought strong drinks was correct for Britain. No, it's not. You go to Proverbs 31, 6, give strong drink to him who's perishing and wine to him whose life is bitter. So it's a common misnomer from teetotalers that the Bible forbids us having strong drink and wine. And it does not, because the first created work of Christ was to create wine. And it was good wine. And it was of mature. Well, I know wine is good. I know wine is good. I'm confused about the strong drink. Well, that's just what it is. It's cicar. And he drank strong drink. There's a difference. Isn't that a difference between the wine and the strong drink? Yes, the strong drink is a drink that's stronger than wine. Hence, strong drink. We would say that the alcoholic level is greater. Okay? So what was that, wine? It wasn't wine, was it? No, no. It says strong drink to him who is perishing and wine to him whose life is bitter. So they're different. So maybe they had moonshine, maybe they had moonshine, moonshine back there, huh? Maybe, or Sabbath shine, I don't know, but that's a joke there. But yeah, maybe they had something. I'm sure they had people who fermented various things and experimented and made their living producing alcoholic beverages. And it wasn't bad, it was just something that they did, that's all. Because wine was one of the ways. One was one of the ways to preserve drinking water. They put low amounts of wine into water. You'd carry it. You'd hardly even taste it. But alcohol would keep it sanitary. Because they would carry these things, not in plastic and glass, but in the stomachs of animals a lot of times that had been removed from animals. And then the ends tied off, they were prepared and sanitized, but they were still biological structures. So they would do this, okay, and they would have refrigeration. So, anyway, okay. Well, look, let me give a quick little logic on it, okay? Now, Noah got drunk, right, from wine. He got drunk from wine. Anybody, any of the saints, they got David drinking wine, got, you know, tipsy or whatever. Now, this strong drink is a different one for me. You know what I'm saying? Yes, yes, hold on, we gotta break. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Hold on, hold on. We gotta break. Okay, we'll be right back, okay, buddy? Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. And welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Cole from Georgia. Cole, are you still there, buddy? Yeah, I'm still here. I haven't had any of that moonshine, so I'm still sober. Well, look, the word strong drink, I did a little search during the break. It occurs, it's a single Hebrew word, shaker, and it occurs 23 times in the Bible, in the Old Testament. And a lot of times it says, warning, don't do it. Don't take it. But it's in the context of a drunkard, or it mastering you, or being bad. And then the priests were not to be drinking it, as they go into the temple, clear-minded, clear-headed. But there are references where it says it recommends to take it. So, Proverbs 31.4 and Deuteronomy 29.6, or 14.26, okay? All right? Yeah, sounds about right. So there is a difference. It was probably some type of liquor that they brewed up, huh? something could have been beer could have been something else who knows I don't know it's a good question but maybe someone knows of a book or something where they've gone through and researched it we know from back then but strong drink and wine are mentioned in the Bible Okay. Yeah, I guess they probably had all kinds of stuff, you know, because the Bible does says there's nothing new under the sun. That's right. So I'm pretty sure some of the same drugs or pharmaceuticals that we think are new, they had all that stuff back then. Probably. Probably had a lot of stuff. Including moonshine. Including moonshine. Maybe Noah even probably was, he probably got a little tipsy on the moonshine. Maybe it really wasn't all wine. But it does say wine though, doesn't it? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Wine and strong drink. Okay. All right, buddy. All right. All right, man. All right, God bless, okay. Whoo, I enjoyed that conversation. That was interesting. Steve from Utah, then we'll get to Georgina. Steve, welcome here on the air. Hello, Matt. How are you? I'm doing all right. Hanging in there, man. Hanging in there. Where you got, buddy? So, I got a question. I can't remember the actual chapter and verse, but there is... statement in the Bible in Philippians, I know it's in Philippians, about through Jesus' stripes we are healed. That's 1 Peter 2, 24. Okay. Oh, maybe I, why do I think that was Philippians? I thought there was one in Philippians. Anyway, so through his stripes we are healed. Are the stripes referring to the flogging with the cat of nine tails? Yes. Okay. Now, Jesus also maintained the wounds of the wrists and side. And beard being plucked out, yes. Yeah. Does he maintain the wounds from the flogging? Yes, I would say so. So he's got his back all ripped apart. And that's a question. Is he right now in that state? And that I don't know for sure. However, In 1 Corinthians 15, 35-45, it says that which is sown in the ground, the body, is the same thing raised. And Jesus said in 1 John 2, 19-21, he would raise his own physical body. And then in Acts 25-28, Jesus told Thomas put your hand into my side and your finger into my hand so he retained the crucifixion wounds So it seems logical to say he retained the other wounds as well. I wouldn't die in that hill, but it seems logical, okay? Yeah, that was so when he when he Rose and visited the Apostles When he did that with Thomas Did he, would he have still maintained the, the wounds from the backlogging? Yes. I said, yeah, it looks like he would. Yes. Yeah. I would, I'd lean towards that. He did. He still has them now. I would lean that way, but I wouldn't die in the hill. Okay. As I said. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And that's, that's just my own logical way of putting it. Okay. There you go. Put it back to work to me. Uh, Well, I really enjoyed that first conversation about time. Yeah, it's a good conversation, and it can get even deeper. Yeah, I know it can get deeper, because that sounds like a question I would come up with. Yeah, it's good. I like talking like that. So, and then I also wanted to thank you also for Your recognition of the book, Evidence Demands a Verdict, because that, when I was doing a lot of traveling, I listened to the audio book of it, and that book is what actually made me believe 100% in the Bible. Because it was so well put together and there was no denying anything that was in there. It's a good book. So I would recommend anybody that has any kind of any kind of questions or doubts about the Bible to listen to that or read the book. It's a long book. It was a long It was a long... But it's broken up. Yeah, it's broken up into categories so you can pick a certain thing and just go through and see documentation, evidence. The book is called Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. Yeah. Incredibly valuable. It was the best thing I ever read or listened to. It's good stuff. Okay, buddy. Well, hey, I appreciate the answer. I'll chat at you some other time. Okay, sounds good. All right, God bless. All right, now let's get to Georgina from North Carolina. Sorry for the long wait, but there you go. You're on. All right. Thank you for taking my call. Sure. I am calling about the word is when it comes to specifically the sacraments and most specifically the sacrament of communion. I I don't I know, you know, there's the word is in the original language, and then there's English. And then when I consider that I went to church mainly in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, and now often attend Baptist Church, and I know about being a guest at a Catholic church, I'm finding huge differences between the understanding of the Lord's presence in the sacrament and that this is the body and blood of Christ, the mystery of it, and I'm interested in what you have to say about that. We can talk about it. I want to warn you that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian, flat out. First of all, it teaches a false gospel, it teaches a false priesthood, and it promotes idolatry. I've been studying it for 30 years. OK, so in LCMS, I went to an LCMS college. And so I studied there. I went to Presbyterian Seminary. And I've studied the Catholic view of the Eucharist extensively. In their view, it's a propitiatory sacrifice that's re-offered. And so what they'll teach is that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. And that's logically impossible. And I can explain why. And it's biblically impossible. And I can explain why. But I'll go to the Bible first. When Jesus was there on Earth, he was under the law. Galatians 4.4 says so. He was created or made under the law. He had to fulfill the law, which is why he was baptized. The law of the Old Testament applied to him and the disciples. And in the book of Leviticus in 1714, it says God commands that no Israelite is to eat the blood of any flesh. Very, very succinctly. And in the Council of Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, the first council, said, don't take blood. So the admonition before and after the supper and the crucifixion of Christ is the same in the Old Covenant and in the New Covenant. So what the Catholic Church has done is taken literally when Jesus said this is my body and my blood but he also said I am the door but also when he said this is my body and blood in Matthew 27 If you do not drink again from the fruit of the vine, and the reason this is significant is after he instituted the supper, he said in Matthew 26.29, there it is, He said, I will not eat or drink again from the fruit of the vine. So even afterwards, Jesus called it wine. So this is the stuff I argue with Catholics all the time on this. So I know, hold on. Okay, we've got more. All right, after the break, I'll show you why logically it's not possible. I've already shown biblically why. Okay, you want to hold Regina? Okay. Yeah. All right. Good. We'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, and welcome back to the show. Hope you're having a good time listening. And let's get back on the air with Georgina from North Carolina. Georgina, are you still there? I am. All right. So I pulled up my notes on Robocatholicism, my Word document that's 254 pages long. And the Roman Catholic Church calls the Eucharist a divine sacrifice and a representation of the sacrifice that is propitiatory, which means it, the Mass, removes your sin each time it's done. And it's offered by the hands of a priest. So the priest is re-offering the sacrifice over and over and over again. That's not the biblical model in the New Testament. But nevertheless, there's so much I could get into on this. So there's a logical problem with the idea of transubstantiation. Now, just so you know, logic is something that exists in the mind of God. I can get into the argument, I could say, about God's mind, which is everywhere, logic is part of Him, and we can think logically because of Him. And I can get into this, it's a whole interesting discussion, but nevertheless, if something is not logically true, it cannot be true. If it's not logically consistent, it cannot be. Because truth is what corresponds to the mind of God. truth is what corresponds to his mind. And since God is perfect, the logic of his mind is also perfect. And so we can think his things. And he even says to us in Isaiah, let us reason together. Now I'm going to introduce a concept to you. Two concepts, essential and accidental properties. So an essential property of something is something necessary to it. An accidental property of something is something not necessary to it. Let me explain. A circle has a necessary property of roundness. It's necessary. You cannot have a circle without roundness. It just doesn't work. The diameter of a circle is accidental in that you can have different diameters of a circle. So all circles have roundness, but not all circles have the same diameter. understand this concept. This means that the essence, this is just an illustration, the essence of a circle requires that also have roundness. Otherwise it's not a circle. You cannot transfer the essence of a circle to a square and it's the square still be square and yet it has the essence of circle. It's logically impossible. It can't happen. Now we can apply this to the Eucharist. Because they say the bread and the wine become the body and blood, in essence, without the necessary properties associated with it. In other words, it's like saying the necessary property of the circle is transferred to the property of a square, but roundness is not there. The property. So what I mean is the bread is still bread when examined under a microscope and tested. The wine is still wine when examined and tested. But they say the necessary essence or the essence of what it is exists in there. But yet the necessary properties to each don't. Logically, that's impossible. It cannot be done. So what they do to get around this problem is they just say it's a mystery. It's an essence that's there, but we don't understand how it works. So they admit that there's a logical impossibility, and then they dismiss it by saying it's a mystery. I can give you so much more about Catholicism. It has so many problems. So I think you're going to continue to move forward with the other term at this point, shall we? It's okay. I give you a lot and stuff. A lot of people are not trained in this to think like this. And that's okay. Neither was I. I had to learn it. But what you said made sense to me. I mean, that was understandable. You're very good at explaining that piece. Good. And so if you're attending, let me say this, if you're attending, I don't know if you are attending a Catholic church, is that what you're doing now, a little bit, checking it out? No, no. I attend a Baptist church and actually also a global Methodist church. Is that global Methodist church United Methodist? it has broken from the United Methodist Church. Okay, so now I've never heard of a global Methodist Church because the United Methodist Church is so bad that I wouldn't even call it Christian in its official teachings. Right, so this movement of the global Methodist Church is broken apart because of that. I mean there are certainly And I live in the Bible Belt, as you can see, so I think it started here, actually. Do you know if they allow women pastors and elders in the global Methodist Church? I don't believe so, no. Okay, good. We're not against women or anything, but it's just not their position according to scripture. So, um, okay. Well, that's good. Okay. So anyway, that's what the Eucharist is and the Catholics teach. It's a divine sacrifice. I can give you all the documentation. I got, I'm looking right at it. And, uh, it's a sacrifice that's propitiatory, which means it removes the wrath of God. And so the Catholic church is fully a non-Christian. Uh, it's an apostate religion. It is. Okay. So, um, is this a good place for a question? Um, so I told you originally that I spent most of my life and years in the Lutheran church, specifically the Missouri Senate. And, um, while I would have mistakenly, maybe mistakenly said that the Missouri Senate church was teaching the same as a Catholic church, And maybe it is, but I believe that what they're saying is that the Lord is, I mean, Jesus is the word. And so he is present in the word as he is in baptism. And so can you kind of speak, can you kind of speak to that? while, you know, your explanation using, you know, a square and a circle, you know, made perfect sense to me. Now I'm trying to resolve either what I understood I was taught some time ago or, you know, like was I mistaken in what I was learning about the presence of God in the sacrament. All right. So a covenant sign represents the covenant. So my wife and I are married 38 years. I have a covenant sign called my ring finger. And so if I reject the ring, ring finger, the ring on the ring finger, I reject it. I'm rejecting the covenant that I made with her. So the covenant of the Lord's Supper is a representation of the actuality. God works covenantally and covenants have signs. Now a covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. And so Abraham had a covenant, circumcision. Jesus established a covenant, the Lord's Supper. The covenant signs represent the covenant. To reject the covenant sign is to reject the covenant. So, when Jesus was sitting there, he was present when he gave the supper, now we have to look at what the elements are. Bread and wine. If we say, hypothetically, that the bread becomes the body of Christ, the way the Catholics teach, then we have a problem because then it means that the body of Christ is in multiple places at a time that can't be because he's by definition as a human he can't do that. Then we have on the far end of the scale that is just a representation nothing more than a representation the way a wedding ring is nothing more than a representation of the wedding vows Now, on the other hand, the wedding ring is a little bit more than just a representation. It's actually a seal. And in Romans 4.11, circumcision is called a seal of the faith that's already there. So now we're backing away from the just a symbol towards there's something more to it. But how far do we go? Because my ring, as an example, is not just a symbol. It is the sign of that covenant. And so I carry it with me because it's public. And there's a representation in it. But there's just a little bit more than just a representation. And so what the supper seems to be is a representation, because he says, do it in remembrance of me. But he also said that he'll be with us always. That's a different part of the scripture. That's Matthew 28, 18 through 20. So if that's the case, then how is he there with the Lord's Supper? My answer, just my answer as I say, he's there the same way he was the first time. When people say, what is that? I say, I don't know. I just don't know. He was there with them. And a covenant is what we call an abstraction. An abstraction is something that occurs in the mind, like a thought, or the number two, or roundness. These are abstractions. A covenant is an abstraction, but it's a commitment. And so a physical sign represents the abstraction. The covenant sign of bread and wine represents his body and blood, the sacrifice of everything he's done. And so he's there somehow, some way. The Bible doesn't tell us. It's not literal in the sense of transubstantiation. The Lutherans, what they'll say, he's in, with, and under. That there's a type of presence in the elements, and the elements are a means of grace. as the Catholics do. Then I ask, what does it mean to be a means of grace? Is grace like a substance transferred through the act of the ceremony? Personally, I reject that. Or is God more attentive to you in a gracious way because you are remembering him like you said to do? Well, that I don't have much of a problem with. I get it. I was taught, when I asked that question about it, What if somebody dies before they're baptized or, you know, a child, you know, and the pastor, the Lutheran pastor said, the Lord can save can save who he chooses. And if if we had to be saved by the act of a person and then then what do we need Jesus for? Exactly. I don't I call it sacerdotal salvation. where the sacraments are the means of grace by which you're then saved. And so that's correct. We're justified by faith alone in Christ alone. In fact, the faith we have is from God and it's in Christ. That's sufficient to justify us. But we participate in the sacraments and when we define sacrament as an ordinance that is established by Christ as something that needs to be done. as a symbol and a standard that is Christian. It is core in essence that has been commanded. We do that. But doing those doesn't save us. OK. OK, I appreciate that, because i know that one of the people i think that was taught with regard to commune specifically with to be careful not to take if you don't yet if you're here you're not well uh... repentant if you're not going to go to another with the mocked god by publicly you know we're at a time to check that it's not Georgina, we're out of time. I'd love to continue to talk about this, because that's what you're now bringing up. Oh, you should call back tomorrow. We should talk about that. That's an important thing. Okay? All right, Georgina, we gotta go. All right, God bless. Okay, and Thomas, sorry for waiting. You're waiting a half hour, buddy, sorry. Hey, everybody, we'll talk to you tomorrow, by God's grace. Another program powered by The Truth Network.